Out to Lunch!

Tax cuts for the rich. Deregulation for those with corporate privilege. Letting the Russians know in advance our intention to take out the ISIS leader before sharing that information with Congress, putting the assault plan at risk. Promising better healthcare for without a plan to do that while helping red state attorneys general challenge the only healthcare plan actually offered to all Americans. Targeting any social program that provides benefits, from Social Security that has been paid for through earnings, and Medicare, to more charitable government plans like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). What a President!!!... and I didn’t have to address his litany of never-ending fake news, his willingness to advance his political career at the expense of national security and… well, you know the drill.

The GOP has railed against social programs for year, mislabeling them as “socialism” (which really means the end of private ownership) purposely to mislead voters, and figuring out how to cut or eliminate them to support the tax cuts for the rich. The current deer in the headlights, the target of the Trump’s latest assault on those facing poverty or borderline poverty: SNAP, mostly known for the food stamp side of that program, from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Trump’s order to the USDA: cut as much as you can from those benefits.

Conservatives and the Trump White House think of recipients of such food support as the undeserving poor. “That’s the outgrowth of a mind-set that views our most vulnerable populations as malingerers, rip-off artists or guilty of moral turpitude… The USDA’s proposal is an especially nasty example of this behavior. Let’s examine how it would work…

“Food stamps are cut off for households with income of more than 130% of the federal poverty line, or $33,475 per year for a family of four (about $2,790 a month). Household income is calculated after exemptions for certain expenses.

“Under broad-based categorical eligibility, states can deem households eligible for food stamps based on if they’re receiving assistance from some other anti-poverty programs. The rule, which has been in effect for about 20 years, also allows states to raise the income eligibility and asset limits to promote SNAP eligibility.

“Many also do so to avoid the ‘benefit cliff,’ which happens when a modest increase in a family’s income results in a complete cutoff of benefits, leaving the family worse off than when its employment income was lower… The USDA calculated that the rule change would throw more than 680,000 households with children off SNAP. Of those, about 80% have children in school — 982,000 children, according to the agency’s calculations. And of those, 55%, or about 540,000, would no longer be eligible for free meals, although most would be eligible for reduced-price meals. About 40,000 would have to pay the full rate. Michael Hiltzik writing for the October 23^rd Los Angeles Times. 

“There’s a further wrinkle. Households thrown off SNAP will have to apply separately for access to free or reduced-price school meals for their children. That raises an administrative barrier that may keep many from gaining access, and will raise administrative costs for states.

“The USDA didn’t bother to assess the administrative impact. Its cost estimates, it said, ‘do not account for potential state and local administrative costs incurred due to collecting and processing household applications ... and also do not account for any increased responsibility placed on the households to complete and submit a school meals application.’

“Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue has defended this rule change as part of a campaign to close eligibility ‘loopholes’ that allow people to claim benefits to which they’re not entitled, but that’s just window-dressing.” Michael Hiltzik writing for the October 23^rd Los Angeles Times. Yup, save those loopholes for rich folks filing tax returns… like Donald Trump. Did you note that “children” thang above?

Hiltzik continues: “Ever vigilant for ways to save money for the overburdened federal taxpayer, the Trump administration last week delivered its analysis of a change in eligibility for free or reduced-price school breakfasts and lunches… The savings: $90 million a year, or two thousandths of a percent of the $4.4-trillion federal budget. The collateral damage: about half a million children who would no longer be eligible for free school meals. They’re a subset of about 1 million children living in households that would lose their eligibility for food stamps.

“The consequences of this shortsighted policy could be dire. Food stamps and school meals make powerful contributions to household economic stability and children’s health… As Hilary Hoynes of UC Berkeley has observed, ‘the benefits of nutrition support can persist well into adulthood for those who have access to the program before birth and during early childhood.’ The benefits include improved achievement in school and lower rates of obesity, hypertension and heart disease in adulthood.

“The analysis came from the Department of Agriculture, which administers the food stamp and school meal programs. It’s a more precise estimate of the impact of rule changes the USDA first announced in July… The latest figures, however, inspired such an uproar among anti-poverty experts that the administration reopened the official comment period on the rule — extending it by two weeks to Nov. 1.” 

If we starve those poor people or hasten their demise (particularly their children, who clear are obviously nasty culprits too), and then deprive them of healthcare, maybe they’ll just die off and leave the wealthier classes alone. After all they are the consumers with the lowest levels of disposable income to buy stuff those rich people make or sell. Makes you proud to be an American!

              I’m Peter Dekom, and I don’t remember reading about that value of intentionally hurting the poor in the New Testament, but then I am not one of those who defends their support of Donald Trump based on the Bible.